defense of TV/ LONG POST
Julie Solich
Someone expressed interest in reading this when I had finished it. So here it is. I'm not sure if my friend used quotes from Jim Trelease's Read Aloud Handbook or paraphrased his arguments. It was a part of a book review my friend had done for my last newsletter so this is my response to it that is going in the next issue. It was really good for me to write this. It's erased my doubts forever about the TV. This is a long post. You've been warned. <g>
Julie
1. Television is the direct opposite of reading. TV encourages a short attention span, has constant action, commercial breaks. The average family "zaps" (with the remote) once every 3 minutes and 26 seconds. Books have subtle character development and complex sentences, and encourage longer attention spans.
Movies offer subtle character development too. Much that is explained in a book is assumed in a movie, leaving much to the imagination of the viewer. The length of many movies, not to mention the complexity of many plots requires concentration. Just a thought, but why is it 'good' for a child to lose themselves in a book but a child that sits absorbed in a TV program is labelled a 'zombie' or passive?I haven't met an 'average' family that zaps every 3 minutes and 26 seconds but maybe they are out there. I do know families who sit and enjoy television together and are able to watch an entire program without feeling the need to use the remote.
2. For young children, television is an antisocial experience, whilst reading is a social experience. Conversation during TV time is seldom if ever encouraged. On the other hand, a child must have the book read to them (that is often tactile as well, sitting in someone's lap); the child participates as well as receives.
I remember in grade 6 my teacher decided to read The Hobbit to the class. I loved the story and lived for the half an hour after lunch each day when he would read to us. Now, as much as I loved that time, it wasn't particularly social. Questions were not encouraged and talking was definitely not acceptable. For me that was not a problem but it may have been for any children who did not understand the meaning of a passage or who perhaps didn't like that kind of story. It may have made them feel isolated and bored. Watching TV together can be a special time of togetherness, cuddling on the couch experiencing the show together. I love going to the movies with my husband, even more I love leaving the movies with him and spending the next hour or so talking about it. Many interesting conversations can result from a movie/TV show, even just laughing at a joke is a shared experience.Reading books and watching the television both have the capacity to be social or antisocial, it's what we bring to them. Are we open to communication? Are we interested in our children and their thoughts? Are we going to be patient towards interruptions? Do we like being with our children and therefore make the time to be with them? If we can answer these questions positively, then this becomes a non-issue. A few hours of a child watching TV or reading a book on their own isn't going to be damaging.
3. Television deprives a child of his most important learning tool: questions. For the more than twenty hours a week that the average five year old sits in front of the set, he neither asks a question or receives an answer.
My children ask as many questions watching a movie as when we read a book, sometimes more. Often we miss large parts of the movie because one question leads to another, which leads to another, and so on. If the parent is watching with the child and is open to conversation, they will be asked questions. If children are not having their questions answered, or never asks any in the first place, then it is more accurate to lay the blame at the parent's door rather than the television. Children who have parents who take them seriously will never be shy about asking questions.
4. Television interrupts a child's most important language lesson: family conversation.
A child who reads all day is being 'deprived' of family conversation, as is the child who plays in their room with their Lego or spends a lot of time playing with their friends. These activities are not seen as interruptions, so why should the act of watching the TV be seen as a negative thing? A family can talk during the TV viewing, discussing what is happening on the screen. In fact, great discussions can and do happen often from just a few minutes of television. With commercial breaks taking place regularly, the family has guaranteed conversation time throughout the program. We have had hours of conversation about certain character's motives and actions in a movie we watched the night before.
5. Television encourages deceptive thinking. Implicit in every advertisement is the idea that all problems that can be solved by simple artificial means. Between the ages of 1 and 17, the average child is exposed to 350,000 commercials, most promoting the idea that solutions to life's problems can be purchased.
As children grow and learn to solve problems and resolve the conflicts that arise within a family, it becomes increasingly obvious that a Big Mac or the latest mobile phone does not solve life's problems. If we spend time with our children and they see us questioning what we see or read or hear then they will learn by osmosis to question what they see. Sometimes though the only way to learn that some things are not what they purport to be is by experiencing them. If my children are disappointed with something that doesn't live up to their expectations based on its advertising it's a valuable lesson in not believing everything you are told.
6. The vocabulary of television is lower than nearly all forms of print. 72% of TV scripts consist of simple sentences or fragments of a sentence. In Make Way for Ducklings (a picture book by Robert McCloskey), only 33% is simple sentences. In The Tale of Peter Rabbit (Beatrix Potter), only 21% is simple sentences.
What about the various Shakespeare films? Wouldn't the vocabulary in them be more complex than many books? Shakespeare was a master storyteller but it's important to remember that his plays were written to be performed, not read. Makes me wonder what Will would have thought about TV/movies. Would he be a playwright or a famous screenwriter? The television could be thought of as a modern day storyteller. I think also of the recent movies and television series' based upon Jane Austen's books, introducing her work to modern generations.To despise the television because of its lack of vocabulary is akin to looking askance at art for the same reason. Art works are generally wordless images. Does this make them something to be shunned because they are not providing people with the proper amount of vocabulary? Should the artists have expressed themselves in written form rather than choosing a visual medium? Imagine a world without Van Gogh or Georgia O'Keeffe. No thankyou!For those who are visual learners, the television can be a wonderful tool opening up a rich world of learning. Television brings history to life in a way that a dry textbook simply cannot. I think too of the amazing sights I have seen while watching wildlife documentaries, Kodiak bears catching salmon from an Alaskan river, Grumeti crocodiles ambushing thirsty wildebeests coming to drink at the Nile River, giant silverbacks beating their chests as they watch over their families in the Congo. I don't imagine that I will be visiting any of these places in the near (or distant) future but I have still been given a glimpse of them through the medium of television.
Television (and video games) have been blamed for the higher rates of illiteracy and for the loss of family togetherness. I think there are other reasons for this happening. Kids now spend most of their time at school. At the tender age of four, kids are being sent off to kindergarten to learn. Many children just aren't ready to learn to read at 5 or 6. Children who are unhappy at school due to bullying, boredom, fear of failure or the hundred other reasons I could think of are going to find learning difficult. They may even resent having to learn to read before they are ready and become more and more resistant to reading. I wonder too if their parents read to them or read for pleasure themselves? Parents often complain about how much television their children watch, but how many parents seek out their children's company with no other motive than to just be with them. A child that goes to school spends nearly his whole day doing as he is told, even having to ask permission to meet bodily needs. When he finally gets home, how much time do his parents give him? I've been around a lot of families over the years and what I've seen is the mum, if she isn't at work, give her kids 10-20 minutes of time and then they are told to go and play or watch TV. If the parents both work then that means the children get even less attention from them. It's easy to make TV 'the bad guy'. It's harder to look at the choices families make and to take responsibility for ourselves and our choices. If a family chooses to make time for one another and parents choose to see their children as interesting and special people then television won't be damaging. Having our children at home with us rather than at school means we have time to be with them. Time to read, time to talk, time to watch TV, time to play, time to live and learn together as life unfolds around us.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Julie
1. Television is the direct opposite of reading. TV encourages a short attention span, has constant action, commercial breaks. The average family "zaps" (with the remote) once every 3 minutes and 26 seconds. Books have subtle character development and complex sentences, and encourage longer attention spans.
Movies offer subtle character development too. Much that is explained in a book is assumed in a movie, leaving much to the imagination of the viewer. The length of many movies, not to mention the complexity of many plots requires concentration. Just a thought, but why is it 'good' for a child to lose themselves in a book but a child that sits absorbed in a TV program is labelled a 'zombie' or passive?I haven't met an 'average' family that zaps every 3 minutes and 26 seconds but maybe they are out there. I do know families who sit and enjoy television together and are able to watch an entire program without feeling the need to use the remote.
2. For young children, television is an antisocial experience, whilst reading is a social experience. Conversation during TV time is seldom if ever encouraged. On the other hand, a child must have the book read to them (that is often tactile as well, sitting in someone's lap); the child participates as well as receives.
I remember in grade 6 my teacher decided to read The Hobbit to the class. I loved the story and lived for the half an hour after lunch each day when he would read to us. Now, as much as I loved that time, it wasn't particularly social. Questions were not encouraged and talking was definitely not acceptable. For me that was not a problem but it may have been for any children who did not understand the meaning of a passage or who perhaps didn't like that kind of story. It may have made them feel isolated and bored. Watching TV together can be a special time of togetherness, cuddling on the couch experiencing the show together. I love going to the movies with my husband, even more I love leaving the movies with him and spending the next hour or so talking about it. Many interesting conversations can result from a movie/TV show, even just laughing at a joke is a shared experience.Reading books and watching the television both have the capacity to be social or antisocial, it's what we bring to them. Are we open to communication? Are we interested in our children and their thoughts? Are we going to be patient towards interruptions? Do we like being with our children and therefore make the time to be with them? If we can answer these questions positively, then this becomes a non-issue. A few hours of a child watching TV or reading a book on their own isn't going to be damaging.
3. Television deprives a child of his most important learning tool: questions. For the more than twenty hours a week that the average five year old sits in front of the set, he neither asks a question or receives an answer.
My children ask as many questions watching a movie as when we read a book, sometimes more. Often we miss large parts of the movie because one question leads to another, which leads to another, and so on. If the parent is watching with the child and is open to conversation, they will be asked questions. If children are not having their questions answered, or never asks any in the first place, then it is more accurate to lay the blame at the parent's door rather than the television. Children who have parents who take them seriously will never be shy about asking questions.
4. Television interrupts a child's most important language lesson: family conversation.
A child who reads all day is being 'deprived' of family conversation, as is the child who plays in their room with their Lego or spends a lot of time playing with their friends. These activities are not seen as interruptions, so why should the act of watching the TV be seen as a negative thing? A family can talk during the TV viewing, discussing what is happening on the screen. In fact, great discussions can and do happen often from just a few minutes of television. With commercial breaks taking place regularly, the family has guaranteed conversation time throughout the program. We have had hours of conversation about certain character's motives and actions in a movie we watched the night before.
5. Television encourages deceptive thinking. Implicit in every advertisement is the idea that all problems that can be solved by simple artificial means. Between the ages of 1 and 17, the average child is exposed to 350,000 commercials, most promoting the idea that solutions to life's problems can be purchased.
As children grow and learn to solve problems and resolve the conflicts that arise within a family, it becomes increasingly obvious that a Big Mac or the latest mobile phone does not solve life's problems. If we spend time with our children and they see us questioning what we see or read or hear then they will learn by osmosis to question what they see. Sometimes though the only way to learn that some things are not what they purport to be is by experiencing them. If my children are disappointed with something that doesn't live up to their expectations based on its advertising it's a valuable lesson in not believing everything you are told.
6. The vocabulary of television is lower than nearly all forms of print. 72% of TV scripts consist of simple sentences or fragments of a sentence. In Make Way for Ducklings (a picture book by Robert McCloskey), only 33% is simple sentences. In The Tale of Peter Rabbit (Beatrix Potter), only 21% is simple sentences.
What about the various Shakespeare films? Wouldn't the vocabulary in them be more complex than many books? Shakespeare was a master storyteller but it's important to remember that his plays were written to be performed, not read. Makes me wonder what Will would have thought about TV/movies. Would he be a playwright or a famous screenwriter? The television could be thought of as a modern day storyteller. I think also of the recent movies and television series' based upon Jane Austen's books, introducing her work to modern generations.To despise the television because of its lack of vocabulary is akin to looking askance at art for the same reason. Art works are generally wordless images. Does this make them something to be shunned because they are not providing people with the proper amount of vocabulary? Should the artists have expressed themselves in written form rather than choosing a visual medium? Imagine a world without Van Gogh or Georgia O'Keeffe. No thankyou!For those who are visual learners, the television can be a wonderful tool opening up a rich world of learning. Television brings history to life in a way that a dry textbook simply cannot. I think too of the amazing sights I have seen while watching wildlife documentaries, Kodiak bears catching salmon from an Alaskan river, Grumeti crocodiles ambushing thirsty wildebeests coming to drink at the Nile River, giant silverbacks beating their chests as they watch over their families in the Congo. I don't imagine that I will be visiting any of these places in the near (or distant) future but I have still been given a glimpse of them through the medium of television.
Television (and video games) have been blamed for the higher rates of illiteracy and for the loss of family togetherness. I think there are other reasons for this happening. Kids now spend most of their time at school. At the tender age of four, kids are being sent off to kindergarten to learn. Many children just aren't ready to learn to read at 5 or 6. Children who are unhappy at school due to bullying, boredom, fear of failure or the hundred other reasons I could think of are going to find learning difficult. They may even resent having to learn to read before they are ready and become more and more resistant to reading. I wonder too if their parents read to them or read for pleasure themselves? Parents often complain about how much television their children watch, but how many parents seek out their children's company with no other motive than to just be with them. A child that goes to school spends nearly his whole day doing as he is told, even having to ask permission to meet bodily needs. When he finally gets home, how much time do his parents give him? I've been around a lot of families over the years and what I've seen is the mum, if she isn't at work, give her kids 10-20 minutes of time and then they are told to go and play or watch TV. If the parents both work then that means the children get even less attention from them. It's easy to make TV 'the bad guy'. It's harder to look at the choices families make and to take responsibility for ourselves and our choices. If a family chooses to make time for one another and parents choose to see their children as interesting and special people then television won't be damaging. Having our children at home with us rather than at school means we have time to be with them. Time to read, time to talk, time to watch TV, time to play, time to live and learn together as life unfolds around us.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nellebelle
We recently watched Shakespeare in Love on DVD. In the extras, someone said that he felt Shakespeare would absolutely have been a screenwriter, had he lived today.
Mary Ellen
Mary Ellen
----- Original Message ----- Shakespeare was a master storyteller but it's important to remember that his plays were written to be performed, not read. Makes me wonder what Will would have thought about TV/movies. Would he be a playwright or a famous screenwriter?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelli Traaseth
Thanks for sending this Julie. Great work!
Your summation explains so much of what I feel about the majority of parents out there. And they aren't willing to look at that. Instead of examining their parenting skills, its much easier to just blame the TV or video games!
Kelli~
Your summation explains so much of what I feel about the majority of parents out there. And they aren't willing to look at that. Instead of examining their parenting skills, its much easier to just blame the TV or video games!
Kelli~
----- Original Message -----
From: Julie Solich
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:53 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-Discussion] defense of TV/ LONG POST
....
Television (and video games) have been blamed for the higher rates of illiteracy and for the loss of family togetherness. I think there are other reasons for this happening. Kids now spend most of their time at school. At the tender age of four, kids are being sent off to kindergarten to learn. Many children just aren't ready to learn to read at 5 or 6. Children who are unhappy at school due to bullying, boredom, fear of failure or the hundred other reasons I could think of are going to find learning difficult. They may even resent having to learn to read before they are ready and become more and more resistant to reading. I wonder too if their parents read to them or read for pleasure themselves? Parents often complain about how much television their children watch, but how many parents seek out their children's company with no other motive than to just be with them. A child that goes to school spends nearly his whole day doing as he is told, even having to ask permission to meet bodily needs. When he finally gets home, how much time do his parents give him? I've been around a lot of families over the years and what I've seen is the mum, if she isn't at work, give her kids 10-20 minutes of time and then they are told to go and play or watch TV. If the parents both work then that means the children get even less attention from them. It's easy to make TV 'the bad guy'. It's harder to look at the choices families make and to take responsibility for ourselves and our choices. If a family chooses to make time for one another and parents choose to see their children as interesting and special people then television won't be damaging. Having our children at home with us rather than at school means we have time to be with them. Time to read, time to talk, time to watch TV, time to play, time to live and learn together as life unfolds around us.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deborah Lewis
***Your summation explains so much of what I feel about the majority of
parents out there. And they aren't willing to look at that. Instead
of examining their parenting skills, its much easier to just blame the TV
or video games!***
And before TV and video games they blamed the devil. <g>
I've always thought parents were a little jealous of TV. <g>
If a kid is interested in TV a parent might think it's because they're
not interested in the parent. The parent isn't interesting.
Instead of being happy their child was smart enough to find something
interesting, they're jealous it wasn't mom or dad.
The points against TV were pretty weak. No social interaction? No
questions? No language?
I know lots of families where TV dialog is infinitely more clever, witty
and intelligent then the child would ever hear listening to his parents
or siblings.
I know lots of families where a child socializing with TV personalities
is enormously better than socializing with family members who are mean,
violent or just plain dull.
I never knew a kid who didn't ask questions about what was on TV or about
the TV itself. But any kid will stop asking questions if he doesn't get
answers, or if there's no one there to ask.
That was interesting Julie. I hope anti TV people everywhere will print
it out and tape inside their coffee cup cupboard and look at it everyday.
Deb L
parents out there. And they aren't willing to look at that. Instead
of examining their parenting skills, its much easier to just blame the TV
or video games!***
And before TV and video games they blamed the devil. <g>
I've always thought parents were a little jealous of TV. <g>
If a kid is interested in TV a parent might think it's because they're
not interested in the parent. The parent isn't interesting.
Instead of being happy their child was smart enough to find something
interesting, they're jealous it wasn't mom or dad.
The points against TV were pretty weak. No social interaction? No
questions? No language?
I know lots of families where TV dialog is infinitely more clever, witty
and intelligent then the child would ever hear listening to his parents
or siblings.
I know lots of families where a child socializing with TV personalities
is enormously better than socializing with family members who are mean,
violent or just plain dull.
I never knew a kid who didn't ask questions about what was on TV or about
the TV itself. But any kid will stop asking questions if he doesn't get
answers, or if there's no one there to ask.
That was interesting Julie. I hope anti TV people everywhere will print
it out and tape inside their coffee cup cupboard and look at it everyday.
Deb L
Shelley & Donald Wurst
Julie, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on this. All I ever hear about is the evils of TV (even my DH is hard-wired to believe it), yet all I SEE with Jacob is enjoyment and learning thru use of the TV. Somehow he's managed to learn the alphabet, counting to 100, colors, shapes, has a couple dozen words in spanish, knows a few songs in other languages (that I neither speak nor understand), and knows all the words and dance moves to every song The Wiggles has ever done <G>. I never taught him any of that stuff. So you can't convince me that learning doesn't take place thru that medium.
In fact, right now, he's spelling along with Blue and Steve on a Blues Clues video. We put in videos for him rather than watching TV programming, for a couple reasons. First of all (and most importantly! LOL) is that we don't have cable, and only get a limited number of channels with undependable reception and clarity. But the other reason is that I don't like child-directed advertising, and can avoid that altogether with the videos. Another benefit that I never anticipated is that Jacob can choose to watch what he wants to whenever he wants to, as opposed to being at the mercy of the TV schedule.
My experience has been that TV encourages him to be actively involved -- he is MUCH more passive with books (tho he loves those too). I like seeing him getting up to dance around, or shouting out the answers to the TV screen. And during slower moments, he can drift off to play with some toys or leave the room and return when things get interesting again. Hard to do that with a book, as very few "readers" that I know of will continue to read aloud if their audience leaves them for a few minutes (other than me that is, I'll just keep on reading! LOL). So it's easier for him to get what he wants to get out of the programming. I'm a huge fan of flexibility.
I let him watch what he wants whenver he wants it. Somedays (especially if he's not feeling well) that translates into a whole lot of "couch potato" time. But most days not. He's very good at asking me to "turn off" the TV when he's had enough.
--Shelley, Mommy to Jacob (2 1/2 yrs) and Gabriel (4 mos)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Moon -- harvest.moon@...
Working Rough and Smooth Collies
www.geocities.com/harvestmooncollies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In fact, right now, he's spelling along with Blue and Steve on a Blues Clues video. We put in videos for him rather than watching TV programming, for a couple reasons. First of all (and most importantly! LOL) is that we don't have cable, and only get a limited number of channels with undependable reception and clarity. But the other reason is that I don't like child-directed advertising, and can avoid that altogether with the videos. Another benefit that I never anticipated is that Jacob can choose to watch what he wants to whenever he wants to, as opposed to being at the mercy of the TV schedule.
My experience has been that TV encourages him to be actively involved -- he is MUCH more passive with books (tho he loves those too). I like seeing him getting up to dance around, or shouting out the answers to the TV screen. And during slower moments, he can drift off to play with some toys or leave the room and return when things get interesting again. Hard to do that with a book, as very few "readers" that I know of will continue to read aloud if their audience leaves them for a few minutes (other than me that is, I'll just keep on reading! LOL). So it's easier for him to get what he wants to get out of the programming. I'm a huge fan of flexibility.
I let him watch what he wants whenver he wants it. Somedays (especially if he's not feeling well) that translates into a whole lot of "couch potato" time. But most days not. He's very good at asking me to "turn off" the TV when he's had enough.
--Shelley, Mommy to Jacob (2 1/2 yrs) and Gabriel (4 mos)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Moon -- harvest.moon@...
Working Rough and Smooth Collies
www.geocities.com/harvestmooncollies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/9/2003 10:07:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ddzimlew@... writes:
the Tour de France again. <g> And he's gotten hooked on The Sopranos when he
gets HBO when hotelling (plus I have a friend who'll be ON The Sopranos
starting in September---now *I'll* have to watch!).
I haven't even counted how many channels we get! TV fans here now---whether
we like it or not! <G>
And regarding Jim Trelease: my librarian recommended his two books last time
I was in. He has a lot of good (unschooly) things to say about reading---just
read TO them, surround them with the written word, and let them read when they
are ready. BUT he is VERY anti-TV. Too bad he can't see the benefits of both!
Made the book a bummer!
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ddzimlew@... writes:
> ***Your summation explains so much of what I feel about the majority ofWe just got DIGITAL cable yesterday. Ben wanted to watch Lance Armstrong win
> parents out there. And they aren't willing to look at that. Instead
> of examining their parenting skills, its much easier to just blame the TV
> or video games!***
the Tour de France again. <g> And he's gotten hooked on The Sopranos when he
gets HBO when hotelling (plus I have a friend who'll be ON The Sopranos
starting in September---now *I'll* have to watch!).
I haven't even counted how many channels we get! TV fans here now---whether
we like it or not! <G>
And regarding Jim Trelease: my librarian recommended his two books last time
I was in. He has a lot of good (unschooly) things to say about reading---just
read TO them, surround them with the written word, and let them read when they
are ready. BUT he is VERY anti-TV. Too bad he can't see the benefits of both!
Made the book a bummer!
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/9/03 8:07:20 AM, ddzimlew@... writes:
<< I know lots of families where TV dialog is infinitely more clever, witty
and intelligent then the child would ever hear listening to his parents
or siblings. >>
We have a pretty damned witty and talkative family, but we're not NEARLY as
clever as The Simpsons!!
<<I know lots of families where a child socializing with TV personalities
is enormously better than socializing with family members who are mean,
violent or just plain dull. >>
The best dream I ever had was that I lived on the Ponderosa, and I was their
little sister. In the dream it was as though I had always been there, it
wasn't a TV show, it was real, and there were FOUR, my three brothers and me. And
I had a horse like Little Joe's but smaller. (And I know, his wasn't all
that big <g>.) He was helping me with my saddle, and I was grateful and he was
being really nice to me.
I probably dreamed that because we had a horse, but a BIG horse, brood mare,
and we could ride her, but we had to saddle her, and I was always afraid of
the cinch buckle because I didn't really understand it. It was a cloth strap
with double rings, and once it was too loose. The saddle didn't come off, but
it slipped. Ever since then I've been nervous around knots and buckles and
saddles. I'm not afraid of horses, but I'm afraid of my own lack of
understanding and saddles.
So it was a comforting dream that someone else would be willing to help me
with a saddle, because my parents said do it yourself or you're not old enough
to ride.
I've never told that second part of that story to anybody, ever. I'm going
to cry.
Sandra
<< I know lots of families where TV dialog is infinitely more clever, witty
and intelligent then the child would ever hear listening to his parents
or siblings. >>
We have a pretty damned witty and talkative family, but we're not NEARLY as
clever as The Simpsons!!
<<I know lots of families where a child socializing with TV personalities
is enormously better than socializing with family members who are mean,
violent or just plain dull. >>
The best dream I ever had was that I lived on the Ponderosa, and I was their
little sister. In the dream it was as though I had always been there, it
wasn't a TV show, it was real, and there were FOUR, my three brothers and me. And
I had a horse like Little Joe's but smaller. (And I know, his wasn't all
that big <g>.) He was helping me with my saddle, and I was grateful and he was
being really nice to me.
I probably dreamed that because we had a horse, but a BIG horse, brood mare,
and we could ride her, but we had to saddle her, and I was always afraid of
the cinch buckle because I didn't really understand it. It was a cloth strap
with double rings, and once it was too loose. The saddle didn't come off, but
it slipped. Ever since then I've been nervous around knots and buckles and
saddles. I'm not afraid of horses, but I'm afraid of my own lack of
understanding and saddles.
So it was a comforting dream that someone else would be willing to help me
with a saddle, because my parents said do it yourself or you're not old enough
to ride.
I've never told that second part of that story to anybody, ever. I'm going
to cry.
Sandra
Helen Hegener
At 2:38 PM -0400 7/9/03, SandraDodd@... wrote:
kids. We all have saddles, we just rarely use them. Only for long
pack trips. Interesting.
over the years, and somehow never told that part, my thinking goes
off in a lot of different directions. You who were not helped by your
parents have become one of the leading helpers-of-other parents on
the largest list for the most cutting-edge parenting option available
today... Cause and effect; it boggles the mind. Fascinating.
{{{{Sandra}}}}
Wish I was close enough for a real hug.
Helen
>So it was a comforting dream that someone else would be willing to help meMine did too, so I learned to ride bareback. I still do, and so do my
>with a saddle, because my parents said do it yourself or you're not old enough
>to ride.
kids. We all have saddles, we just rarely use them. Only for long
pack trips. Interesting.
>I've never told that second part of that story to anybody, ever. I'm goingWow. When I think of all the wise stuff you've written to everyone
>to cry.
over the years, and somehow never told that part, my thinking goes
off in a lot of different directions. You who were not helped by your
parents have become one of the leading helpers-of-other parents on
the largest list for the most cutting-edge parenting option available
today... Cause and effect; it boggles the mind. Fascinating.
{{{{Sandra}}}}
Wish I was close enough for a real hug.
Helen
Julie Solich
>time
> And regarding Jim Trelease: my librarian recommended his two books last
> I was in. He has a lot of good (unschooly) things to say aboutreading---just
> read TO them, surround them with the written word, and let them read whenthey
> are ready. BUT he is VERY anti-TV. Too bad he can't see the benefits ofboth!
> Made the book a bummer!That's what I thought. I was kind of disappointed when my friend chose to
>
> ~Kelly
>
use the anti TV chapter to write about because there was a lot of good stuff
in the book about reading.
Julie
>the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner,
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
>email to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Julie Solich
>The kids who don't ask questions about what's on TV probably don't ask
> I never knew a kid who didn't ask questions about what was on TV or about
> the TV itself. But any kid will stop asking questions if he doesn't get
> answers, or if there's no one there to ask.
>
> That was interesting Julie. I hope anti TV people everywhere will print
> it out and tape inside their coffee cup cupboard and look at it everyday.
>
>
> Deb L
questions about anything. And they're probably not read to either!
I am working on these anti TV people. It's funny really. Her husband makes
lots of comments like he's waiting for us to turn into a bunch of dummies
who will grunt single syllable sounds at one another. It's kind of in jest
but not. They haven't come up with a decent argument though. So whose the
dummy?
Julie
>the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner,
>
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
>email to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
thinkspringblooms
--- In [email protected], "Julie Solich"
<mjsolich@i...> wrote:
julie, would it be okay to share this essay on a couple of my local
groups' info lists?
everyone, can i also share some of your various responses?
Thanks all.
cris
<mjsolich@i...> wrote:
> Someone expressed interest in reading this when I had finished it.So here it is...<<
julie, would it be okay to share this essay on a couple of my local
groups' info lists?
everyone, can i also share some of your various responses?
Thanks all.
cris
Julie Solich
>Yeah, that would be fine.
> julie, would it be okay to share this essay on a couple of my local
> groups' info lists?
> cris
Julie
>the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner,
>
>
>
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
>email to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Shelley & Donald Wurst
>everyone, can i also share some of your various responses?OK by me.
--Shelley, Mommy to Jacob (2 1/2 yrs) and Gabriel (4 mos)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Moon -- harvest.moon@...
Working Rough and Smooth Collies
www.geocities.com/harvestmooncollies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]